Don’t know but the Examiner saying they would have written this up as an overdose had he been found in his home with that level seems ominous for the prosecution.
And the very real edema of his lungs from the looks of it.
I have a feeling things are going to get a whole lot more tense by the time this is said and done.
If i kill a terminally ill cancer patient with a gun, i still get charged with murder.
And while terminal cancer is untreatable, an opiod overdose is very easily treatable. I dont see this as much help to Chauvin, but i guess we will see.
It would make it next to impossible for Chauvin to be convicted of 2nd degree murder, but it still doesn’t justify what happened. Since when are you supposed to kneel on someone’s neck when they are ODing?
Yeah, I think there’s a case for failing to place in a recovery position and/or provide first aid as a first responder. Not sure what that could lead to in a charge. But ultimately the defense will be that he died from from an overdose. Not from asphyxiation.
The question is if it’s reasonable to believe that Floyd may have died from an overdose without Chauvin even having to be there.
I think he can/could be convicted of something. But, what is the reaction going to be to anything less than 2nd degree murder? Oof.
Add in rapist.
I thought the car belonged to the woman.
Causation is precisely how the defence will play this. Frankly, it’s not a preposterous defence.
High levels of opium, a COVID infection and sickle cell?
This is why I was warning people that the push for murder was a prosecutorial mistake, there is more than enough room to make a case for reasonable doubt.
And if Chauvin goes free? We ain’t seen nothing yet on the ‘mostly peaceful protest’ front.
This definitely isn’t something I’m well versed in. Can the charges be downgraded as the trial goes? It’s not going to be that since we couldn’t stick him with murder 2 he goes completely free?
Or, completely outside of a murder charge? He’s a first responder who is probably trained to place a restrained man on the ground into a recovery position. Not to mention there wasn’t an attempt to resuscitate him. Is there some legal obligation on his part?
I couldn’t begin to guess. There’s no affirmative duty to help in my jurisdiction anyway.
A good question. @thunderbolt23 can they downgrade during trial? Or would they charge everything and attempt to get him on the highest charge they can?
You could make a reasonable case of negligence causing death or recklessness (we don’t use murder gradients in the U.K.).
Murder 1 seems a no go to me. Second degree seems similarly tough.
I’ll have to defer to anyone more familiar with US legal codes.
Meanwhile, the founders of BLM don’t go public with denouncing the violence because they are too busy with their Hollywood agents and besides, no one who walks around saying BLM or with a sign that reads BLM, knows who they are anyway.
Of course it is
Criminal negligence causing death or something like that
If true, that changed the situation further. I was already wondering why a rapist with a warrant was driving around with his kids, maybe he wasn’t at all.
New name for the movement/organization: Rapist Lives Matter
One way or another it will continue. Remember elections are in November.
I believe he is also charge with manslaughter, but in some cases you can be convicted of a lesser charge.
This, normally - unless something is unusual about the state (and I don’t know of anything).
It’s not much of a defense to say he was going to die anyway - the charge is tied to what caused the death. It you beat the drugs to the punch, you committed homicide.
Ah but there’s the rub, isn’t it. Did they beat it to the punch? The state autopsy has left room to argue that the cause of death was a whole host of reasons.
Had the state autopsy backed up death by asphyxiation, then it would be open and shut, but there seems room to carve a reasonable doubt here.
Edit: I’m not super familiar with how these things go, but I’d be stunned if causation wasn’t a major plank of the defence.
Have a listen to the narrative of prosecutors, probably a low chance as everyone understands this:
We ain’t seen nothing yet on the ‘mostly peaceful protest’ front.
Earlier today the Department of Homeland Security announcement that the non-existent Antifa meets the standards of domestic terrorism. The media is now ensuring the mostly peaceful description doesn’t hide their activity:
I’m trying to imagine the ultimate destination of all this. News cast of the future:
Mostly non-violent day in the world today, most bills pass with usual debate, most celebrities not drunk and abusive and 6 year old Wisconsin boy described women as being “able to have babies”, our full exposè on him after these messages.
Did he threaten to harm the kids in the back?
Perhaps the last gasp of the purple? I rather hope not.
Edit: But to quote Empress Theodora “The royal purple is the noblest shroud.”
That hypothetical was assuming no kids in the car.
Did you just quote a prostitute?
He delivered that speech with more passion and honesty than the BLM activists could ever hope to have. We go from “standing up like a man” to “looting is reparations.”
